YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#421

Post by thereare5lights » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 5:45 AM UTC

Thorentis wrote: post #418

bryan0 wrote: post #13

The headline has important context: “YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel hours after Rudy Giuliani appeared on an episode and blamed the Capitol siege on Democrats” At some point the lies need to stop.

Politicians have been making false claims about the opposing party for centuries. Suddenly now Big Tech decides they have the right to pick and choose which lies will be allowed and which won't be? Pathetic.

False equivalence. Big Tech has always removed content that could imminently incite violence.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#422

Post by jojobas » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 5:45 AM UTC

rorykoehler wrote: post #412

jojobas wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No need to sue if you can just ban your opponent from the internet.

I want accountability not censorship.

Isn't being Yezhoved out of reality an ultimate case of accountability for anyone political?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#423

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 5:46 AM UTC

txru wrote: post #410

berneezy3 wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you point me to a source on how Giuliani "meaningfully facilitated illegal insurrection against a peaceful transition"? I can't name democrats who facilitated ilegal insurrection in regards to this past election, but I can name democrats who facilitated illegal insurrection against their own communities after the George Floyd incident. The democrats who refused to call out rioting and looting (as a separate incid…

> Giuliani "meaningfully facilitated illegal insurrection against a peaceful transition"? I think it takes a particularly steelman interpretation to see the content of Giuliani's "trial by combat" speech as not insurrectionist. “So let’s have trial by combat! I’m willing to stake my reputation, the president is willing to stake his reputation on the fact that we’re going to find criminality there.” > last summer Sure…

> IMO the Texas DA (for example) should be able to ask Twitter to moderate a statement like that, and have the moderation heard in court.

If the content is criminal to knowingly carry, they can. (And not just “ask”, they can notify Twitter and inform them they will file criminal charges otherwise.)

If its lawful content, law enforcement at any level has no business getting involved, that’s kind of the point of the First Amendment.

But Twitter also isn’t (unless it has a contract in place obligating it to someone) required to carry any content, just because they aren’t legally prohibited from doing so. That’s also what the First Amendment is about.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#424

Post by longtimegoogler » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 5:46 AM UTC

nprz wrote: post #230

dboreham wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they're pissed off due to whatever in their psychology. However, they're choosing to resort to violence due to lies being spread by Fox News et al. Other people were rioting due to truth about police actions. While all rioting is to be condemned, there isn't some symmetry between a scenario driven by lies and one driven by truth.

As Chomsky[0] I think rightly points out, the suffering and grievances of trump supporters is real, but unfortunately they are unable to correctly identify the cause of their suffering. Evidence seems to support this as deaths of despair have been climbing over the past few decades[1]. This is something I rarely see mentioned in left news outlets, instead we are told trump supporters are only motivated by racial hatr…

It's real in some cases, but for many it isn't. Many of my friends are decently well off, own a home, with good jobs and support Trump. These people support him because they don't like paying taxes, immigration, BLM, wokeism, etc.

I am sympathetic to those who have been impacted economically. But, many of those who are despairing do end up blaming "outsiders" for their problems.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#425

Post by markdown » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 5:46 AM UTC

AaronFriel wrote: post #351

o-__-o wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were three separate bonfires in DC in May. In that case, DC was also burning back then from angry mobs of protesters. My point is the narrative. Take a step back and observe and claim the wrong done by both parties instead of saying one is right and one is wrong.

My god, bonfires?

I heard that those black people had the audacity to burn WHITE(!!) fluffy confectionery over those bonfires!!

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#426

Post by khawkins » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 5:51 AM UTC

thereare5lights wrote: post #421

Thorentis wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Politicians have been making false claims about the opposing party for centuries. Suddenly now Big Tech decides they have the right to pick and choose which lies will be allowed and which won't be? Pathetic.

False equivalence. Big Tech has always removed content that could imminently incite violence.

Banning things left and right is inciting more violence than the content itself. They're making a lot of people desperate who were already extremely distrustful of authority. They don't need Steve Bannon to tell them that tech companies are trying to silence their movement, all they need is Hacker News.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#427

Post by lliamander » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 5:52 AM UTC

maroonblazer wrote: post #217

zdragnar wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too many people are trying to rationalize the polarization of our society, focusing exclusively on the ends and ignoring the means. Remember NPR's puff piece justifying looting? Or (I think) CNN's reporter standing in front of a burning building while saying that the BLM protests were mostly peaceful? (They were, but the not-peaceful bits were downplayed in an obviously biased way). There was another interview I saw…

False equivalence. Looting commercial districts (while objectionable) is not the same as falsely claiming a federal election was stolen and looting the Capital.

A government sponsored media outlet giving justification to the victimization of innocent civilians is much worse.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#428

Post by 1123581321 » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 5:53 AM UTC

cptskippy wrote: post #386

edbob wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Access to legal counsel is in a special category. Law firms are expected to represent people accused of the very worst crimes in order to promote a just outcome. It's extremely disturbing that political actions which may be distasteful but could never be prosecuted as crimes in normal circumstances have become a justification to harass law firms until they refuse to represent a client. I say "normal circumstances" be…

> Law firms are expected to represent people accused of the very worst crimes in order to promote a just outcome. We're entitled to an attorney when defending ourselves from criminal prosecution, but where does it say we're entitled to legal counsel at any other time? At the end of the day Law Firms are businesses, and again these are just businesses protecting their own self interests. If they end up needing legal c…

There is some advocacy to provide public defenders in civil matters. The reasoning is that financial damages can effectively deny liberty, even though the method differs from criminal.

That of course would not mean pressing private firms into public service.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#429

Post by lliamander » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 5:54 AM UTC

GavinMcG wrote: post #243

phkahler wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK. The dems ran around for 3 years claiming the Russians somehow handed Trump the 2016 election.

"We found irrefutable evidence of Russian meddling." - Senator Marco Rubio, R-FL, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chair https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2020/8/rubio-s...

Nowhere near enough to actually influence the election.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#430

Post by kingofpandora » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 5:54 AM UTC

antifreeze0 wrote: post #402

lokedhs wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not in the US, and I haven't visited the country in a very long time. But I'm casually curious about all of this, and have looked at US media. You are absolutely right that CNN is biased. They clearly are not trying to make it seem as though they aren't. The same with Fox, who are equally biased. However, only only of those outlets lets their reporters outright lie. Now, it may be that I'm looking in the wrong pl…

CNN ran with the Russia collusion story for almost 4 years straight. However when it was found out that Biden is meeting with Chinese companies or Hunters laptop they are extremely silent.

So ... They are biased but not lying?